Teaching Creationism.

[Jason Tandro]

I'm just gonna start by saying my belief. I think if we're going to teach Evolution in schools, then we should also teach creationism. Not in an attempt to religiously indoctrinate children, but merely presenting an alternative theory which, while it may not be "scientific", about 95% of people believe.

At the risk of derailment of this topic, I would like to say that I personally believe in Micro-Evolution. primates become better primates. We may have evolved from monkeys in the primate family. I don't believe in macro-evolution though. I don't think that humans went through various phases of single-celled organisms to fish to birds to mammals to primates to humans.

If that's the case, then why are all the lower chain animals still around? I've not seen much substantiating proof that macro-evolution is real, although as I say I believe micro-evolution is a downright certainty.

That being said, I also believe that creationism and science can be reconciled. I think evolution is the "How" and God is the "Why". I believe Genesis is merely a metaphor for the big bang and micro-evolution. I also believe that it did NOT happen in exactly seven days. I believe "days" was used to express a significant period of time and in our terms "day" is something that has a nice, clear example.

---end derailment---

This can be used to discuss your believes about evolution vs. creationism if you wish, but its mainly whether you believe that teaching this (merely as an alternative) violates church and state or if you think it is acceptable? What about teaching neither?

Thoughts?

[Freedan]

Not in public schools. Whether it's taught in a religious context or not, whether it's meant to teach kids a religious theory or not, creationism will probably always been seen as a religious theory. With that in mind, I'd say it has no place in public schools any more than evolution should be preached in church as an alternative.

Quote:

If that's the case, then why are all the lower chain animals still around?

There's no rule saying that when a species evolves, it has to replace the old one. And evolution doesn't really say that life started from one-celled organisms, then grew in to humans over different phases. It gets more in to the 'common ancestor' deal, where some members of a species evolved and branched off in to different species. People hear 'evolution' and think it means we came from monkeys. Really, we just share a common ancestor. And if you go back far enough, that common ancestor probably shared a common ancestor with something else (going way back to the early days). We're just one branch of the chain.

Quote:

while it may not be "scientific", about 95% of people believe.

95%? How do you figure that? God may be popular, but I doubt he has that kind of support.

Quote:

What about teaching neither?

Evolution can be proven as fact. Creationism can't. If we're going to teach kids anything, it should be factual.

Granted, there are many holes in evolution, but science is a constant learning process. Answers will continue to be found.

[Jason Tandro]

As of 2000, 95% of the people in the world believed in some form of higher power (although you are correct in saying that the believe in Judeo-Christian creationism is not at 95%).

And I will grant you that science is a learning process, but I am bothered by your assumption that anything religious must instantly be removed in schools and your assumption that churches automatically are anti-science.

My church does believe that God and Science can be reconciled. And more importantly why are we allowed to teach children about Norse, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian mythology, teach about the way religion affected history such as the Crusades, and even teach "tolerance" towards the beliefs of say Islam(which is followed up by a "what they believe" segment) but Judeo-Christianity and our believes are hushed up?

Not to sound paranoid, but I do think a certain amount of singling out occurs with Christianity.

[EverPhoenix]

id prefer both options to be taught. even though evolution has been proven, and creationism hasnt. although, creationism shouldnt be taught in science lessons. just religion. which should be made a compulsory subject, if only for the introductory years of highschool (it isnt in australia in some schools).

i think its important to open up people's eyes to what else is out there, and let them make up their own mind as to what to believe.

[Jason Tandro]

I wouldn't teach creationism in science. I would teach it in Social Studies.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

As of 2000, 95% of the people in the world believed in some form of higher power (although you are correct in saying that the believe in Judeo-Christian creationism is not at 95%). And I will grant you that science is a learning process, but I am bothered by your assumption that anything religious must instantly be removed in schools and your assumption that churches automatically are anti-science. My church does believe that God and Science can be reconciled.

95% of the people in the world believed in some form of higher power != 95% believe in creationism. no one except americans believes in creationism.

churches are basically not anti-science (catholics officially approved the big-bang-thesis for example), but creationism is anti-science. science proves you via radiocarbon that humans and dinosaurs lived millions(!) of years away, and creationism says "that's wrong". no religion would dare that.

it is dangerous to discuss about creationism, since one shouldn't accept or allow creationism as some sort of alternative science. it's a believe, and it's ok. thinking about teaching it at school is absolutely crazy, and europe unitedly facepalmed when we heard about some americans seriously(!) were thinking about that.

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

And I will grant you that science is a learning process, but I am bothered by your assumption that anything religious must instantly be removed in schools and your assumption that churches automatically are anti-science.

It's not so much that religious material should be removed from schools, just public schools. If Christian religious theories were taught there, everyone would be clamoring for their religion to be included. What justification would there be for not including them? "We're mostly Christian, so yours doesn't get taught"?

There are options out there if parents want their kids to learn this stuff. There are non-public schools (I went to a Catholic school as a child, where religion was taught), Sunday school, and church. But public schools are meant for all, and teaching one religion's theories over another doesn't seem right.

As for churches being anti-science, I'll gladly admit that there have been many scientists in the past that have also worked for the church. These days, however, various scientific theories and procedures are opposed (often by religious groups on moral grounds). Stem cell research, in vitro fertilization.... and while some churches may not outright say they oppose evolution, it just doesn't jive with that Adam and Eve thing.

Quote:

And more importantly why are we allowed to teach children about Norse, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian mythology, teach about the way religion affected history such as the Crusades, and even teach "tolerance" towards the beliefs of say Islam(which is followed up by a "what they believe" segment) but Judeo-Christianity and our believes are hushed up? Not to sound paranoid, but I do think a certain amount of singling out occurs with Christianity.

I think a better question (and I don't mean to offend your religion, it's meant as a legitimate question) is why they're called Greek mythology, and Norse mythology, and Egyptian mythology, but it isn't called "Christian mythology". We have about as much basis for our God as they did, but they're dismissed as myths.

Christianity does get picked on, oftentimes unfairly (there's always someone complaining about a Nativity Scene set up during Christmas), but I don't think it's unreasonable to keep all religions within their respective religious environments.

[inferiare]

Well, here's the thing: here in the USA (excluding Canada, since I don't know how it works there and I don't want to assume at all), every religion BUT Christianity and their belief system is tolerated, taught about, even briefly, in classes. But the minute Christianity is brought up, OH NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT, HOW DARE YOU, IT'S WRONG YOU HEATHENS is brought out. Hell, there was just a lawsuit that's forcing a 10 year old girl who was homeschooled to go to a public school because "she's too Christian" (I kid you not, and that's bullshit; the court system has NO RIGHT to force a child to go to public school when the parents are teaching them legally.) and that she has to "be more open minded."

Yeah. Tolerance. We certainly have that, don't we? And really, if they can teach evolution, which isn't exactly proven either (micro, sure: viruses evolve. Everything else, not so much. Yeah it was brought up that we might share a common ancestor, but I don't see any in betweens anywhere. No super humans, which is what we would inevitably evolve into, either,) considering the second word in what the FULL name for evolution is is THEORY (oh damn, taboo right there, I guess!), creationism could be, in essence for those who don't believe in it, a theory as well. Evolution isn't the cold hard truth, and for others, creationism isn't either.

For the record, if they can teach about Islam and how it was founded, not much differs from Christianity.

It doesn't differ much from Hinduism, save for it being polytheism.

If you're going to censor all the rest of the ways of beliefs, censor them all, INCLUDING evolution. Don't waffle around and teach a theory as if it's truth when it's nothing more than a theory. :/

/rant off

[Freedan]

rainichan wrote:

Evolution isn't the cold hard truth, and for others, creationism isn't either. ............ If you're going to censor all the rest of the ways of beliefs, censor them all, INCLUDING evolution. Don't waffle around and teach a theory as if it's truth when it's nothing more than a theory. :/

The difference is evolution is more than just a theory. It's generally called a 'theory' because it isn't completely indisputable, but there's a great deal of evidence to back it up. Creationism can't make the same claim.

Even if one accepts that evolution is only a 'theory' (and I accept it as more), it's still the best one we have. Until a better one comes along, complete with supporting proof, we should be teaching our most verifiable theories.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

rainichan wrote: Evolution isn't the cold hard truth, and for others, creationism isn't either. ............ If you're going to censor all the rest of the ways of beliefs, censor them all, INCLUDING evolution. Don't waffle around and teach a theory as if it's truth when it's nothing more than a theory. :/ The difference is evolution is more than just a theory. It's generally called a 'theory' because it isn't completely indisputable, but there's a great deal of evidence to back it up. Creationism can't make the same claim. Even if one accepts that evolution is only a 'theory' (and I accept it as more), it's still the best one we have. Until a better one comes along, complete with supporting proof, we should be teaching our most verifiable theories.

I feel the difference here is Creationism isn't a theory as much as part of the belief system. While science relies heavily on theories and hypothesis' as ways of explaining why the world works, Creationism is more the belief in the reason. Thats why I think this debate is faulty in nature- just like any religious debate. It always goes back to believers VS non-believers.

I don't feel creationism should be taught in school, even though I'm a Christian. It should be the responsibility of the parent to teach the child about religion, God, and the sciences of belief. Public schools only tend to what they should- the public needs.

Is it a double standard? Sure it is. Nothings going to change that, however- they'll continue to teach other religions and ignoring Christianity in it's entirety. There's a reason we have such phrases as "Seperation of Church and State," afterall, even if it's not necessarily entirely followed.

Do I believe the girl raini mentioned should be forced to go to Public school? No. If her parents are doing an adequete enough job of teaching her, than it should be their responsibility to teach the child. I have to believe there is more to that story than what is presented at mere face value- if so, their violating their rights not only as people but as religious folk as well.

But I digress- this seems to be coming a little too tense. We should all relax, kick back, and beat someone with T-Ball bats.

[psychokind]

rainichan wrote:

Yeah. Tolerance. We certainly have that, don't we? And really, if they can teach evolution, which isn't exactly proven either (micro, sure: viruses evolve. Everything else, not so much. Yeah it was brought up that we might share a common ancestor, but I don't see any in betweens anywhere. No super humans, which is what we would inevitably evolve into, either,) considering the second word in what the FULL name for evolution is is THEORY (oh damn, taboo right there, I guess!), creationism could be, in essence for those who don't believe in it, a theory as well. Evolution isn't the cold hard truth, and for others, creationism isn't either.

there's the problem: evolution is the cold hard trouth. it's hardened by facts almost as much as science can be. humans evolving into super-humans isn't that much of a problem, depending on how you define "super". and it involves a lot of cruelty and incest. if you want, I can explain how to create super humans, it's not that complicated.

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

rainichan wrote: Yeah. Tolerance. We certainly have that, don't we? And really, if they can teach evolution, which isn't exactly proven either (micro, sure: viruses evolve. Everything else, not so much. Yeah it was brought up that we might share a common ancestor, but I don't see any in betweens anywhere. No super humans, which is what we would inevitably evolve into, either,) considering the second word in what the FULL name for evolution is is THEORY (oh damn, taboo right there, I guess!), creationism could be, in essence for those who don't believe in it, a theory as well. Evolution isn't the cold hard truth, and for others, creationism isn't either. there's the problem: evolution is the cold hard trouth. it's hardened by facts almost as much as science can be. humans evolving into super-humans isn't that much of a problem, depending on how you define "super". and it involves a lot of cruelty and incest. if you want, I can explain how to create super humans, it's not that complicated.

No, Evolution isn't the cold hard truth. :/ It's still a theory, and hasn't moved up from "theory" status since Darwin thought it up some 100 years ago. A lot of the stuff he documented as HEY THIS IS NEW in terms of bugs and the like were because he had never ventured out of England and went to South America on a voyage. There's hardly any facts in Evolution, just as there's hardly any facts for Creationism that support it. The only reason it's "cold hard truth" is because it's shoved down our throats and we're told to believe it or be shunned.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind? Only Americans believe in creationism?

You're a smart guy, so I must only assume that you misspoke. Either you meant to say that only Americans believe in teaching creationism or only Christians believe in creationism. I'm pretty sure both statements are wrong, but they make much more sense than the original.

@Freedan: I figured you'd bring up that argument, and I agree that semantics are a touchy subject when dealing with religion. I still agree with Raini pretty much 100%.

[Freedan]

rainichan wrote:

No, Evolution isn't the cold hard truth. :/ It's still a theory, and hasn't moved up from "theory" status since Darwin thought it up some 100 years ago.

Of course it has. Since Darwin first proposed it, a mountain of substantial evidence has appeared.

Virtually no scientist worth their salt would call evolution a theory any more. The only theoretical thing about it is how it all started, not that it happened.

It's about as close to a fact as something can get. It's a fact that the earth is around 4 billion years old (give or take), that multi-celled life is at least 800 million years old, that past life forms no longer exist, and modern ones didn't exist in the past.

They know evolution happened, they're just trying to find out how it started. And as I said earlier, science is an ongoing learning process, so they'll probably figure it out some day. We may not even be alive to see it, but they'll find an answer eventually.

[Jason Tandro]

The fact does remain that it is referred to as the Theory of Evolution, and not the Law of Evolution.

But as I said, I will concede that micro-evolution is pretty much proven. Macro-evolution isn't, in my opinion.